1 Judgment in Cri. Appeal No.633-23 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.633 OF 2023 Sheetal Nitin Patil, Age : 30 years, Occu.: Household, R/o.: C/o.: Anturli Bk. Tq. Pachora, District : Jalgaon …. APPELLANT (Informant) VERSUS 1. Nitin @ Chandrakant Madhukar Patil, Age : years, Occu.: Service, R/o.: Raisoni Nagar, Jalgaon 2. Madhukar Gana Patil, Age : years, Occu.: Nil, R/o.: Raisoni Nagar, Jalgaon 3. Mangala Madhukar Patil, Age : yeas, Occu.: Household, R/o.: Raisoni Nagar, Jalgaon …. RESPONDENTS (Original Accused) …. Mr. Harshal P. Randhir, Advocate for the Appellant Mr. Girish V. Wani, Advocate for Respondent No.3 …. CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND ABASAHEB D. SHINDE , JJ. DATED : 09/03/2026. JUDGMENT : ( PER : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE , J. ) 1. The appellant–informant has challenged the acquittal of the present respondent–accused in Sessions Case No.47 of 2018 for the 2026:BHC-AUG:10520-DB 2 Judgment in Cri. Appeal No.633-23 offences punishable under Sections 498A, 307, 324, 504, 506, and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and District Judge–4, Jalgaon (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Judge”) by judgment and order dated 04.04.2023 in the said case. 2. According to the prosecution, the appellant–informant is the wife of respondent No.1, with whom she got married on 15.05.2011. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are her brother-in-law and sister-in-law, respectively. Though the appellant was treated well for the initial period of three months, but thereafter the respondents started demanding an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from her for the purpose of business. As the appellant expressed her inability to bring the said amount, the respondents started abusing and assaulting her. They used to threaten her for sending to her paternal house. Even after the birth of her daughter, Mokshada, the respondents continued to harass her on the ground that she had not given birth to a male child. Thereafter, on 02.05.2016 at about 8:00 to 8:30 a.m., the respondents picked up a quarrel with the appellant over petty reasons. Respondent No.1 poured petrol on the person of the informant, whereas respondent Nos.2 and 3 instigated him to set 3 Judgment in Cri. Appeal No.633-23 her ablaze. Somehow, the informant managed to rescue herself and ran away and due to fear she went to her paternal house. Even thereafter, on the next day, the respondents went to the parental house of the informant and tried to forcibly take her back. In that attempt, they also assaulted the relatives of the informant. Accordingly, on 11.05.2016 the informant lodged a report at Pachora Police Station and consequently the present crime was registered under the aforesaid sections against the respondents– accused. On completion of investigation, the respondents – accused were charge-sheeted, but the learned trial judge, after conducting the trial, acquitted all the respondents – accused from the aforesaid offence. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant – informant at the admission stage and also perused the copies of notes of evidence along with the impugned judgment. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant – informant vehemently argued that the learned trial judge has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and ignored the vital evidence of the informant as well as medical officer. 4 Judgment in Cri. Appeal No.633-23 5. On going through the material on record in the form of the impugned judgment as well as the notes of evidence, it is evident that there are no specific details with respect to the alleged demand of Rs.5,00,000/-, particularly regarding the day and date of such demand. Moreover, the informant has not stated for which business the said amount was allegedly demanded. Further, though the informant claimed that respondent No. 1 poured petrol on her on 02.05.2016 and that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 instigated him to set her ablaze, there is no supporting evidence on record to substantiate the said allegation. The Investigating Officer did not even enter the house of the respondents to ascertain the place of occurrence. 6. Further, though it is alleged that Prabhucharan Patil (PW-5), sustained a fracture injury in the incident dated 03.05.2016, the evidence of Dr. Nilkanth Narhar Patil (PW-7) is not convincing on this aspect. He did not record any history to that effect in the medical certificate (Exhibit-70). He also failed to inform the police despite being aware that it was a medico-legal case. Moreover, he did not recollect when he had examined Prabhucharan Patil (PW-5). On perusal of the said medical certificate, it is evident that neither the age of the injury nor the weapon by which such injury could 5 Judgment in Cri. Appeal No.633-23 have been caused, has been mentioned. Though he maintained the case papers relating to the said examination, the same were not handed over to the police. Thus, the admissions given by Dr. Patil on these aspects definitely give rise to suspicion regarding the prosecution story. 7. The most important aspect is that despite the occurrence of the incidents on 02.05.2016 and 03.05.2016, the FIR was lodged on 11.05.2016. There is no explanation forthcoming from the prosecution as to why such a delay of about 7 to 8 days occurred in lodging the same. In such circumstances and considering the overall evidence on record, it can safely be inferred that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the respondents beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, considering the scope of an appeal against acquittal, it is not permissible to take a different view and disturb the judgment based on appreciation of the material on record merely because another view is possible. Hence, we do not find any perversity in the impugned judgment. As such, the appeal is devoid of merit and stands dismissed accordingly. ( ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. ) ( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE , J. ) VS Maind/-